Thursday, November 13, 2014

It is explained that the process of mass loss via heterolytic fissioning accelerates during stellar evolution because of lowered escape velocity.
For people who are wondering why my papers are so short I must ask the question, does a longer paper mean more understanding?

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Abstract: It is noted that the main difference between Alexander Oparin's structure of the Sun and Jeffrey Wolynski's.

Mr. Oparin takes the stance that the center of the Sun is a red hot liquid nucleus on page 18,[1] and this is where him and I differ greatly. The Sun as it stands is hollow. It is too young to have formed a core, as core development happens as the star evolves. The surface of young stars like the Sun signal the material is much too hot to even be liquid, but exists in its ionized state and becomes gaseous as it cools and the gas condenses into the central regions of the star forming the core. This inward falling material would case the star to shrink and cool, forming the core as it gravitationally collapses. Core development is an end result of a star's evolution, young stars do not have cores.

Abstract: It is expressed in simple terms the locations in which life arises.

According to stellar metamorphosis, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation. Since life is a by-product of a star's evolution as is the case of the Earth, we can come to the conclusion that the conditions in which life arises are currently present in all evolving stars. The chemical reactions necessary for the formation of life from the formation of molecules from ionized plasma, to polymerization of the molecules, to prokaryotes, to eukaryotes and then to multicellular life, to sea plants then to animals and land plants all result in a series of stages of a single star's evolution. Life evolves as stars evolve, this means stars are life producing objects as their inherent nature, not fusion reactors. The Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and all the stars in the night sky and in the galaxy are in one stage or another of life formation. It also means that Venus, Mars and Mercury at one point hosted life very similiar to Earth's, as they are dead stars. This leads credence to the fact that as the star evolves life evolves, and as the star dies, the life on it dies as well. Life and stars are much more intimitely tied together than what establishment dogma can consider, because they consider stars and planets as separate objects,[1] which is the gravest mistake ever in the history of astrophysics.

For those interested natural philosophers it is shown a simple picture of the surface of the Sun It should be noted that they resemble battery cells. The question should be then which is the anode/cathode. Which material has the higher reduction potential and what is this material comprised of? There are two giant battery cells in this picture. All natural philosophers should understand by now that the Sun is an electrochemical phenomenon not, thermonuclear.

The enthalpy of stars rises and falls on the whole depending on whether it is being born or undergoing metamorphosis. These differences can be generalized via basic thermodynamic phase transitions. This paper outlines the very basics of star science.

The SSM serves two purposes:
1. It provides estimates for the helium abundance and mixing length parameter by forcing the stellar model to have the correct luminosity and radius at the Sun's age,
2. It provides a way to evaluate more complex models with additional physics, such as rotation, magnetic fields and diffusion or improvements to the treatment of convection, such as modelling turbulence, and convective overshooting.
Like the Standard Model of particle physics and the standard cosmology model the SSM changes over time in response to relevant new theoretical or experimental physics discoveries.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_solar_model#Purpose_of_the_standard_solar_model

Unfortunately the SSM is incorrect in many, many ways. To combat bad physics, we must first correct the points given above:

1. The Sun's age is incorrect, it is a young, not old star. They forced the stellar model to have correct luminosity, this means the original stellar model was actually much dimmer (it had stars as not shining, but in all actuality it has stars as still not shining, as they are static systems not exchanging heat with their environment, astronomers and astrophysicists just gloss over this embarrassing fact.)
2. Having more complex models is horrendous. Good science is simple. The model stellar metamorphosis provides is a star of hollow structure which collapses on itself as it ages and cools becoming the "planet", all the while differentiating the interior.

Like the standard model of particle physics and the standard cosmology model, the SSM is full of ad hoc assumptions, is absolutely incorrect and needs to be replaced.